Moral sin versus venial sin

[Ron_Conte]

Saint Thomas Aquinas: “Therefore when the soul is so disordered by sin as to turn away from its last end, viz. God, to Whom it is united by charity, there is mortal sin; but when it is disordered without turning away from God, there is venial sin.”
(St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I-II, Q. 72, A. 5.)

Pope John Paul II: “And when through sin, the soul commits a disorder that reaches the point of turning away from its ultimate end, God, to which it is bound by charity, then the sin is mortal; on the other hand, whenever the disorder does not reach the point of a turning away from God, the sin is venial. For this reason venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity and therefore eternal happiness, whereas just such a deprivation is precisely the consequence of mortal sin.”
(Pope John Paul II, Reconciliation and Penance, n. 17)

 

[Bookcat]

Saint Thomas Aquinas: “Therefore when the soul is so disordered by sin as to turn away from its last end, viz. God, to Whom it is united by charity, there is mortal sin; but when it is disordered without turning away from God, there is venial sin.”
(St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I-II, Q. 72, A. 5.)

Pope John Paul II: “And when through sin, the soul commits a disorder that reaches the point of turning away from its ultimate end, God, to which it is bound by charity, then the sin is mortal; on the other hand, whenever the disorder does not reach the point of a turning away from God, the sin is venial. For this reason venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity and therefore eternal happiness, whereas just such a deprivation is precisely the consequence of mortal sin.”
(Pope John Paul II, Reconciliation and Penance, n. 17)

And of course we know that if there is a grave matter involved and full knowledge and full consent – then there is mortal sin.

Pope John Paul II also notes this.

So one does not have to have the “intention” per se of turning away from God but if one choose do something that is a grave matter (this would be in fact a turning away from God)–for whatever reason-- with full knowledge and full consent --it is a mortal sin.

 

[Ron_Conte]

And of course we know that if there is a grave matter involved and full knowledge and full consent – then there is mortal sin.

Some magisterial sources call this type of sin, which has grave matter, full knowledge, and full consent, actual mortal sin; and other sources, such as Reconciliation and Penance, use the term mortal sin to the same effect.

Terminology varies from one magisterial source to another, and from one theological source to another.

Pope Benedict XII, On the Beatific Vision of God: “Moreover we define that according to the general disposition of God, the souls of those who die in actual mortal sin go down into hell immediately (mox) after death and there suffer the pain of hell.”

The Council of Florence: “But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.”

objective sins “are evil because they are opposed to the objective order of human nature and of the world, behind which stands God, its Creator.”

“Every actual (personal) sin is a real abuse of freedom, contrary to the will of God. The degree of this abuse may vary. The different degrees of guilt of the sinner also depend on this. In this sense one must apply a different measure for actual sins, when it is a question of evaluating the degree of evil contained in them.”
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19861029en.html

 

[Ron_Conte]

Note: the title of this thread should be mortal sin versus venial sin

‘moral’ is a typo.

 

[thistle]

Some magisterial sources call this type of sin, which has grave matter, full knowledge, and full consent, actual mortal sin; and other sources, such as Reconciliation and Penance, use the term mortal sin to the same effect.

Terminology varies from one magisterial source to another, and from one theological source to another.

Pope Benedict XII, On the Beatific Vision of God: “Moreover we define that according to the general disposition of God, the souls of those who die in actual mortal sin go down into hell immediately (mox) after death and there suffer the pain of hell.”

The Council of Florence: “But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.”

objective sins “are evil because they are opposed to the objective order of human nature and of the world, behind which stands God, its Creator.”

“Every actual (personal) sin is a real abuse of freedom, contrary to the will of God. The degree of this abuse may vary. The different degrees of guilt of the sinner also depend on this. In this sense one must apply a different measure for actual sins, when it is a question of evaluating the degree of evil contained in them.”
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19861029en.html

Ron,

Is there any status between mortal sin and venial sin or is it always the case that when a person commits a sin of grave matter it remains a venial sin if one or more of the 3 conditions are lacking. Is there no such thing as a mortal sin with reduced culpability or is that simply a venial sin?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Actual sin is distinguished from objective sin.

An actual mortal sin must have all three conditions: grave matter, full knowledge, full consent.

Whenever the matter is grave, the sin is called an objective mortal sin; the sin is objectively mortal. An objective mortal sin might also be an actual mortal sin. Or a sin might be merely an objective mortal sin, and not also an actual mortal sin, if full knowledge and/or full consent are lacking.

A sin is objectively a mortal sin, but only an actual venial sin, if the matter is grave but full knowedge or full consent is lacking, or there is substantial reduction in knowledge or consent. If knowledge is substantially less than full, or consent is substantially less than full, then an objective mortal sin would not also be an actual mortal sin; culpability would be reduced to an actual venial sin.

Is there any status between mortal sin and venial sin or is it always the case that when a person commits a sin of grave matter it remains a venial sin if one or more of the 3 conditions are lacking. Is there no such thing as a mortal sin with reduced culpability or is that simply a venial sin?

An objective mortal sin with substantial reduction in culpability is an actual venial sin, but is still objectively mortal (grave matter). So a sin can be both objective mortal and actual venial. When a person commits a sin of grave matter, it is always an objective mortal sin, but it remains an actual venial sin unless all three conditions are present.

 

[thistle]

Actual sin is distinguished from objective sin.

An actual mortal sin must have all three conditions: grave matter, full knowledge, full consent.

Whenever the matter is grave, the sin is called an objective mortal sin; the sin is objectively mortal. An objective mortal sin might also be an actual mortal sin. Or a sin might be merely an objective mortal sin, and not also an actual mortal sin, if full knowledge and/or full consent are lacking.

A sin is objectively a mortal sin, but only an actual venial sin, if the matter is grave but full knowedge or full consent is lacking, or there is substantial reduction in knowledge or consent. If knowledge is substantially less than full, or consent is substantially less than full, then an objective mortal sin would not also be an actual mortal sin; culpability would be reduced to an actual venial sin.

An objective mortal sin with substantial reduction in culpability is an actual venial sin, but is still objectively mortal (grave matter). So a sin can be both objective mortal and actual venial. When a person commits a sin of grave matter, it is always an objective mortal sin, but it remains an actual venial sin unless all three conditions are present.

Thanks.

 

[Bookcat]

Actual sin is distinguished from objective sin.

An actual mortal sin must have all three conditions: grave matter, full knowledge, full consent.

Whenever the matter is grave, the sin is called an objective mortal sin; the sin is objectively mortal. An objective mortal sin might also be an actual mortal sin. Or a sin might be merely an objective mortal sin, and not also an actual mortal sin, if full knowledge and/or full consent are lacking.

A sin is objectively a mortal sin, but only an actual venial sin, if the matter is grave but full knowedge or full consent is lacking, or there is substantial reduction in knowledge or consent. If knowledge is substantially less than full, or consent is substantially less than full, then an objective mortal sin would not also be an actual mortal sin; culpability would be reduced to an actual venial sin.

An objective mortal sin with substantial reduction in culpability is an actual venial sin, but is still objectively mortal (grave matter). So a sin can be both objective mortal and actual venial. When a person commits a sin of grave matter, it is always an objective mortal sin, but it remains an actual venial sin unless all three conditions are present.

I think it is best for clarity that we use the current language of the Catechism and other documents of the Church.

Instead of saying ‘objective mortal sin’ it would be ‘grave matter’. It would become a mortal sin only if one also had full knowledge and full consent.

For it is not ‘mortal sin’ for the person… until it is actually (as you use it up above as well) committed with full knowledge and full consent. I know one can use the term mortal sin for things like murder etc --but when discussing when a person actually (there is that word again ) commits a mortal sin it is best to use grave or serious matter…it reduces confusion and also is simpler. thus there is a good reason for the CCC etc to make use of these terms…and i think we should use them as well…

And Yes if lacking any of those --though it is a grave matter and it still can have other bad effects (for it is not for nothing that it is grave) the person would be guilty of a venial sin or perhaps no sin at depending…

 

[thistle]

I think it is best for clarity that we use the current language of the Catechism and other documents of the Church.

Instead of saying ‘objective mortal sin’ it would be ‘grave matter’. It would become a mortal sin only if one also had full knowledge and full consent.

For it is not ‘mortal sin’ for the person… until it is actually (as you use it up above as well) committed with full knowledge and full consent. I know one can use the term mortal sin for things like murder etc --but when discussing when a person actually (there is that word again ) commits a mortal sin it is best to use grave or serious matter…it reduces confusion and also is simpler. thus there is a good reason for the CCC etc to make use of these terms…and i think we should use them as well…

And Yes if lacking any of those --though it is a grave matter and it still can have other bad effects (for it is not for nothing that it is grave) the person would be guilty of a venial sin or perhaps no sin at depending…

Actually I find the way Ron has expressed it to be more clear. A sin of grave matter is an objective mortal sin which then becomes an actual mortal sin if the 3 conditions are met.

 

[spirocatania]

My biggest problem is knowing if a sin is mortal or just venial. Sometimes i just dont know and start to stress or worry because i may want to have communion

Like the forth commendment about parents. i know anger is venial but towards parents i would think it’s a little more graver. but still maybe venial. showing fusstration and talking back i would think venial as well. Maybe getting annoyed with a way a parent is or acts and trying to br patient and then letting it out asnd telling them i just dont know

thinmg like this i get annoyed because i dont know when is would be mortal

 

[Ron_Conte]

My biggest problem is knowing if a sin is mortal or just venial. Sometimes i just dont know and start to stress or worry because i may want to have communion

Like the forth commendment about parents. i know anger is venial but towards parents i would think it’s a little more graver. but still maybe venial. showing fusstration and talking back i would think venial as well. Maybe getting annoyed with a way a parent is or acts and trying to br patient and then letting it out asnd telling them i just dont know

thinmg like this i get annoyed because i dont know when is would be mortal

Only actual moral sin prevents one from receiving Communion. So all three conditions would need to be met. If you have reason for substantial doubt that the sin was an actual mortal sin, then you should say an act of perfect contrition and receive Communion. Then confess the sin at your next Confession.

The obligation to honor one’s parents is a grave obligation, but if you violate that obligation in a substantially limited way, such as getting angry or showing frustration or ‘talking back’, then it is not grave matter. Only a grave violation of a grave obligation would be an objective mortal sin.

There are two types of precepts: positive and negative. The negative precepts are acts that we are morally obligated to refrain from doing, under pain of sin: ‘Thou shalt not…’ The positive precepts are acts that we are morally obligated to fulfill: ‘Thou shalt…’

Examples:
You shall love the Lord your God and him only shall you serve: positive precept
Honor your father and mother: positive precept
You shall not commit adultery: negative precept
You shall not steal: negative precept.

The negative precepts bind semper et pro semper [always and in each instance]. We are morally obligated to always avoid adultery, theft, lying, etc.

The positive precepts bind semper but not pro semper [always, but not in each instance]. We are morally obligated to fulfill positive precepts, but we use prudential judgment to decide how and when to do so.

When the obligation is grave, but the failure is not grave, then the sin is only venial. The limited nature of any failure to fulfill a positive precept, or to refrain from violating a negative precept, prevents the sin from being so disordered as to turn the soul that knowingly chooses such an act entirely away from God. Even if the obligation or prohibition is a grave matter, if the sin against that obligation or prohibition is substantially-limited, then the moral weight of the sin itself is venial, not mortal. The charity of God inherent to sanctifying grace is entirely incompatible with mortal sin. But when a failure or violation (a sin of omission or commission) is substantially-limited, the chosen act is not incompatible with remaining in a state of sanctifying grace.

 

[Bookcat]

Actually I find the way Ron has expressed it to be more clear. A sin of grave matter is an objective mortal sin which then becomes an actual mortal sin if the 3 conditions are met.

it can confuse the person. it is better to use the Language of the Catechism which was very thought out as what would be the good way to express things at this time.

not to say Ron is wrong --one can say ‘objective mortal sin’ in the sense that one can say ‘murder is a mortal sin objectively’…

but in thinking about when does a person commit commit a mortal sin – the use of the three things needed; ‘grave matter, full knowledge and complete consent’ before one commits a mortal sin is i think better and why they used it.

for otherwise all the objective and actual etc can confuse some as well as it is odd for a person to tell a person well in order to commit a mortal sin you need well first a mortal sin as well as full knowledge and full consent…

you see what i mean…and even if one uses the other language …objective and actual it can start getting too wordy and sound rather complicated…

 

[Bookcat]

My biggest problem is knowing if a sin is mortal or just venial. Sometimes i just dont know and start to stress or worry because i may want to have communion

Like the forth commendment about parents. i know anger is venial but towards parents i would think it’s a little more graver. but still maybe venial. showing fusstration and talking back i would think venial as well. Maybe getting annoyed with a way a parent is or acts and trying to br patient and then letting it out asnd telling them i just dont know

thinmg like this i get annoyed because i dont know when is would be mortal

In addition to what i wrote before…

in any question after the fact of ‘did i commit a mortal sin?’ --for a person who is trying to live a good life and follow Christ -if he has doubts about one of the three aspects having been present at the time of action…he can take the benefit of the doubt and judge that it was not a mortal sin at that time.

and we only need to confess mortal sin…not doubtful things.

and if you have examined things …and not found mortal sin…

it is good to i should add to pray Jesus I am not certain of any mortal sins so i will judge that if there was any sin it was venial… but in any case I love you and ask forgiveness for all my sins and the grace to follow you better as your disciple.

and perhaps use a little Holy water if you got it …

then do not give it anymore thought. for it is doubtful and you do no have to give it even one more thought…

 

[thistle]

it can confuse the person. it is better to use the Language of the Catechism which was very thought out as what would be the good way to express things at this time.

not to say Ron is wrong --one can say ‘objective mortal sin’ in the sense that one can say ‘murder is a mortal sin objectively’…

but in thinking about when does a person commit commit a mortal sin – the use of the three things needed; ‘grave matter, full knowledge and complete consent’ before one commits a mortal sin is i think better and why they used it.

for otherwise all the objective and actual etc can confuse some as well as it is odd for a person to tell a person well in order to commit a mortal sin you need well first a mortal sin as well as full knowledge and full consent…

you see what i mean…and even if one uses the other language …objective and actual it can start getting too wordy and sound rather complicated…

I respect your viewpoint but I disagree with it.

 

[WetCatechumen]

In addition to what i wrote before…

in any question after the fact of ‘did i commit a mortal sin?’ --for a person who is trying to live a good life and follow Christ -if he has doubts about one of the three aspects having been present at the time of action…he can take the benefit of the doubt and judge that it was not a mortal sin at that time.

and we only need to confess mortal sin…not doubtful things.

and if you have examined things …and not found mortal sin…

it is good to i should add to pray Jesus I am not certain of any mortal sins so i will judge that if there was any sin it was venial… but in any case I love you and ask forgiveness for all my sins and the grace to follow you better as your disciple.

and perhaps use a little Holy water if you got it …

then do not give it anymore thought. for it is doubtful and you do no have to give it even one more thought…

Doubtful things should be discussed with your confessor and then confessed if it is determined that they are sinful.

 

[Bookcat]

Doubtful things should be discussed with your confessor and then confessed if it is determined that they are sinful.

they may be.

but it is not necessary. for we are only required to confess mortal sins …

and with scruples – especially if they are frequent the discussion would never end.

and it can be harmful. of course they may bring this very question up with their confessor as well.

(i am referring to when after the fact someone doubts they had the three things for mortal sin…see above post)

(it can be good especially in matters of the 6th and 9th commandment…these can be tricky …and also so one can form their consciences)

this is not to say it is not good to form ones conscience speaking with ones confessor --that is very good and even for someone without scruples–especially if they are new at the Christian life or something new happens…or that a person who has a difficulty with frequent scruples should not speak to their confessor about them …at least in the beginning…or for further light as new things happen …but it can happen that when the scuples are in high gear they could bring a list longer than that of santa claus of the good children…

but one need not run to confession over doubtful sin one fears having committed…

and of course venial sins are good to confess. for instance a few one is working hard to overcome or that are particularly a problem